StatusCake

Integration Spotlight: DataDog

Today we’ve added a new integration with the DataDog service. This means that you can now import your monitoring data from StatusCake to DataDog each time that an UP or DOWN status is triggered on a StatusCake test.

Once the data is coming in to DataDog from StatusCake it right away becomes searchable along with any other data you choose to import, and there are some great management tools to ensure that you are getting the most out of the information you bring in.

As well as being fully observable all data can be implemented into a range of environments, ranging from Dashboards to it’s own REST API.

With DataDogs advanced tools it’s made very easy to track performance and generate easy to read service overviews. All data will be graphed for you and you can even set up custom alerts for undesirable trends.

The integration also comes with a full audit log, so it’s possible to see exactly who acknowledged or picked up and alert, when they did it, and what was done to fix the issue.

If you’d like to get set up with our newest integration, just check out the guide here on our Knowledge Base to get started!

Share this

More from StatusCake

Buy vs Build in the Age of AI (Part 2)

6 min read The Real Cost of Owning Monitoring Isn’t Code — It’s Everything Else In Part 1, we explored how AI has dramatically reduced the cost of building monitoring tooling. That much is clear. You can scaffold uptime checks quickly, generate alert logic in minutes, and set-up dashboards faster than most teams used to schedule the kickoff

Buy vs Build in the Age of AI (Part 1)

5 min read AI Has Made Building Monitoring Easy. It Hasn’t Made Owning It Any Easier. A few months ago, I spoke to an engineering manager who proudly told me they had rebuilt their monitoring stack over a long weekend. They’d used AI to scaffold synthetic checks. They’d generated alert logic with dynamic thresholds. They’d then wired everything

Alerting Is a Socio-Technical System

3 min read In the previous posts, we’ve looked at how alert noise emerges from design decisions, why notification lists fail to create accountability, and why alerts only work when they’re designed around a clear outcome. Taken together, these ideas point to a broader conclusion. That alerting is not just a technical system, it’s a socio-technical one. Alerting

Designing Alerts for Action

3 min read In the first two posts of this series, we explored how alert noise emerges from design decisions, and why notification lists fail to create accountability when responsibility is unclear. There’s a deeper issue underneath both of those problems. Many alerting systems are designed without being clear about the outcome they’re meant to produce. When teams

A Notification List Is Not a Team

3 min read In the previous post, we looked at how alert noise is rarely accidental. It’s usually the result of sensible decisions layered over time, until responsibility becomes diffuse and response slows. One of the most persistent assumptions behind this pattern is simple. If enough people are notified, someone will take responsibility. After more than fourteen years

Alert Noise Isn’t an Accident — It’s a Design Decision

3 min read In a previous post, The Incident Checklist: Reducing Cognitive Load When It Matters Most, we explored how incidents stop being purely technical problems and become human ones. These are moments where decision-making under pressure and cognitive load matter more than perfect root cause analysis. When systems don’t support people clearly in those moments, teams compensate.

Want to know how much website downtime costs, and the impact it can have on your business?

Find out everything you need to know in our new uptime monitoring whitepaper 2021

*By providing your email address, you agree to our privacy policy and to receive marketing communications from StatusCake.